My Photo
Buy Your Copy Now!
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

« OH NO! The US has paid out $2 BILLION in vaccine injury compensation! That must mean vaccines are dangerous! | Main | Another Fleecing of the Autism Community, Service Dog Edition »

Thursday, January 05, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b6fc69e20168e507eccb970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Andrew Wakefield's Latest Legal Action: Roundup:

Comments

Ken

Even the pro-Wakefield Guardian's summary makes him sound obviously wrong.

Maddy

Just a quick thought. My dusty brain reminds me that the best defense is truth - however, proving someone was 'callous' sounds like 'intent' which could be a bit more problematical. I'm sure the legal eagles will have a better take on this than me.

Chris

Maddy, the term "callous" was used by the UK's General Medical Council in their ruling striking Wakefield off of their medical register. Search for it here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected

Here is where it is used:
The Panel accepts that the children were not persuaded togive blood by being offered money first.
iv. you showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain that you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer,
Found proved
The Panel is satisfied by your evidence that the children were “paid for their discomfort”(day 67p23), which it concluded was evidence of a callous disregard.

v. in the circumstances you abused your position of trust asva medical practitioner,
Found proved on the basis of the above findings.

looking glass

A Few Facts.

Many decisions to remove licences to practice by the GMC are regularly overturned by a High Court of Appeal in London. Prof.John Walker-Smith´s case is being presented in the High Courts next month.

Wakefield and Walker-Smith are still hugely respected in the UK. They are men of high personal and professional integrity.

The GMC is a tool of the UK Government´s Health Department. It´s actions are politically motivated.

Wakefield did not "lose" any previous litigation brought against Brian Deer and Channel 4 in the UK. The case he brought was never heard, it was frozen on Judge´s advice due to the timing of the GMC tribunal. He had no option but to drop the case.

AEFountain

YOu have so kindly posted a link to my opinion regarding Dr. Wakefield's recent lawsuit again Brian Deer, BMJ and Dr. Goodlee. I would ask that you kindly reconsider the accusation of me regarding Dr. Wakefield as a 'maligned hero'. Your statement would imply I feel that is what he is, and I don't. I view him as a pioneer in looking for the cause to our children's suffering, which is more than any doctor I have seen in 18 years. I see Dr. Wakefield as a catalyst to investigating further the causes, as I do David Suzuki, who is getting the word out there that we must do more for this epidemic.

Liz Ditz

From commenter Anataeus Feldspar at RI

The GMC was already initiating an investigation of Wakefield as early as February 2004. Wakefield was the one who initiated his legal action in January 2005, nearly a year later. If Wakefield knew that he could not handle the GMC proceedings and the libel proceedings at the same time, why did he arrange for exactly that?
Anarchic Teapot

I find it hard to understand why a disgraced, struck-off medic would want to bring a libel suit when his chances of winning are practically inexistent, if the court looks at the facts.

I can only assume this is a cynical attempt to raise his PR profile so that he can get more paid gigs as an after-dinner speaker and antivax conference guest star.

Jerk.

Anarchic Teapot

@looking glass
Wakefield's "integrity" is not a fact, it is your opinion. The fact that he inflicted unnecessary and invasive procedures on vulnerable children and falsified test results to obtain what he wanted suggests that your opinion is wrong.

While it is right that the GMC's decisions should be reversible by a higher authority, that does not mean the GMC does what it likes and is always wrong. The first two cases I turned up were overturned on a legal quibble, which one could argue is not in the best interests of patients or medicine.

Chris

AEFountain:

I view him as a pioneer in looking for the cause to our children's suffering, which is more than any doctor I have seen in 18 years.

Interesting. Do you know if he has seen children as a clinician in Texas at any time? He was never qualified in the UK as a pediatric clinician, and not even as a medical doctor in the USA. I think the Texas Medical Board would be very interested if he has seen children as patients.

By the way, his "research" consisted of only twelve children, and actually did not bring up any real issues on a vaccine that had been safely used since 1971. He had absolutely no data to support his statements on the use of single vaccines.

He also did not take up an offer by the Royal Free to continue the research with a larger sample size. It was eventually done by Dr. Brent Taylor. Do you know what the conclusions are in the papers (all done before 2004) by Dr. Taylor?

Here is a hint:
Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
Taylor B et al.
Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
*Subjects: 498 children with autism

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
Taylor B et al.
BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
*Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

(did you notice that the sample sizes were much more than a mere dozen?)

looking glass

Reply to Anarchic Teapot. Indeed my comment as to the reputations and integrity of these men is Opinion, I should have added "before a certain hack journalist in the pay of the Murdoch family was instructed to target a smear campaign against them with the intent to destroy both men´s reputation". My error.

See my link above to the site AgeofAutism.com for further reading under the maligned hero section. Very informative and factual.

Liz

Re Age of Autism comments: for some reason, only comments dated 1/8/12 (today) are showing up. I know I saw previous favorable comments.

Chris

looking glass:

I should have added "before a certain hack journalist in the pay of the Murdoch family was instructed to target a smear campaign against them with the intent to destroy both men´s reputation"

What about those who came along before Mr. Deer, like Dr. Taylor?

looking glass

Reply to Liz
Try this link. it is better.

http://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/ for the section maligned hero.

Anarchic Teapot

@looking glass

AgeofAutism.com for further reading ... Very informative and factual.

*headdesk*
Then again, someone who blithely posts libellous comments about a professional journalist probably isn't very good at spotting a seething cauldron of conspiracy wingnuttery.

Maria

Funny!AoA is foonlwilg the book's Amazon status like it's a World Cup final. Tweeting each time it jumps up. Can't wait to see the tweet: "He's #2!!!!!!!"

Clancy

O. M. G.And the ralely scary part is that it will probably work. I cannot understand how anyone with an IQ of over 2 can be taken in by Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy, but clearly they are. And even scarier is when people you know, who you thought understood, make comments indicating that they are harboring some of these same idiot beliefs. Sigh.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pages

What I'm Tweeting

    follow me on Twitter